Can I pay for somebody else's gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, Dakota, the bottom line to all the advice given, is that your gift idea could be construed as a straw purchase, especially with you having constructive possession in the same residence.

The smart money says, 'make a gift of the money to purchase', and let the recipient do all the steps of a purchase.

They may not buy the pistol you would have ordered. If that is an issue with you then perhaps it's like getting Mom a new chain saw for Mother's Day. With guns that's called a straw purchase.
 
Does a store or location of interest have gift certificates?

If you don't trust them to use it for the gun, then I wouldn't trust them with a gun.

Let them go through NICS, etc. or get them a pony!
 
I think I figured out a good solution. The store is connected with a service called Gun Genie where I can pay 10% down and have it sent there. Then I can give a gift certificate (or cash if the store doesn't offer certificates, as it's a small local store) and that should clear it of being my payment and make everything legal.
 
dakota.potts said:
I'm waiting to hear back from my local FFL now but thought somebody here might have information or case law on the subject
Click to expand...

Now 45 posts later, and you still don't have a clear cut answer:rolleyes:. LMAO!
1. Laws are usually never clear enough.
2. Everybody's OPINION is different.

Typical....

Good luck on your purchase though or your buddies :).
 
Give them a candy basket already!

I think the gift certificate route is the answer and cuts out the ATF helicopters landing on your lawn and chasing away Santa.

If you can't trust them with that, then don't trust them with a gun.

Unless there is something more factual to be said - let's call this and let Dakota come back with what he did.
 
I'll beat you to the punch and tell you the plan so far. The firearm is on its way. I paid about 25% down to secure the gun from gallery of guns to have it sent to my FFL. The delivery is addressed with the recipient's name and the FFL has been made aware of the situation. They do offer gift certificates so I will be giving a gift certificate in the remaining amount of the firearm plus some extra for any ammo, magazines, holsters or other accessories spark the recipient's interest at the store. I expect no issues this way
 
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Angel Alvarez wanted a Glock. Because his nephew, Bruce Abramski, could get one cheaper with a law enforcement discount, Mr. Alvarez bought the Glock through Mr. Abramski, giving Mr. Abramski the money for it. Mr. Abramski bought the Glock and transferred it to his uncle through an FFL (it was an interstate transfer). Mr. Abramki went to jail for lying on the 4473 (Abramski v. US, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014)).
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with this is the "Law Enforcement" discount usually involves the exemption of the Federal Excise Tax that is placed on firearms. That tax is waived for LEO's who sign a form stating their intention to use the firearm for their employment/official duties, and the firearm is NOT intended for transfer or resale. That WILL get you indicted.
 
Dakota, sounds like you're protecting yourself appropriately. The final layer of protection is that it be a true gift and not a round-about way of getting the pistol you want at Christmas. Sounds like that is not an issue, either.

Merry Christmas and all that.
 
Why not get someone of legal age you know to purchase and transfer the gun legally? You give them the cash to do so... Then... Have them rap it for x-mas and you put the to: and From: sticker on the present and set it under the tree.
 
Yes... I understand what a straw sale is. However the issue in this particular post has to do with an underage person attempting to buy something for his father. The main issues are... age and the source of the money. So here is the scenario I play out if I want to get my dad a handgun for xmas and I'm under age. "hey mom look... I think dad would really like this pistol for xmas!!!" mom says.. "oh yes... he would love that." "so mom.... can you get it for him and say its from me?" By the way here's $550 cash for letting me live with you the last 19 years.
Is this technically now a straw sale??? I mean c'mon. seriously. I don't think the ATF or any other organization is gonna come crashing down on this scenario. The mother makes a perfectly legal purchase then legally gifts the item to his father. The source of the money is cash to the mother or other family member for reasons that can't be proven in court that it was for an illegal purchase. As a matter of fact the mother could even say she borrowed the money from her son or he owed her that money. I'm not saying that you can't make this into a technically illegal deal. I'm just saying lets be realistic on what the young lad can do to buy his father a nice xmas present without the ATF kicking in the door.
 
Last edited:
emoody007 said:
Is this technically now a straw sale???
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. In fact, it is essentially the very example of a straw purchase used by the ATF in the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide...

"An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form."

Replace "Mr. Smith" with "Son" and "Mr. Jones" with "mom" and you've got your exact scenario.

The likelihood of getting caught or the absurdity (by our estimation) of the law in question in no way changes whether or not the action is or is not legal.
 
I don't disagree of the technicality of it. But the Law also takes into consideration the intent of the law written and if that intent was violated. It's the very reason we have judges that are supposed to interpret the law. There was an earlier example in this thread that stated if I legally purchase a gun then give it as a gift to someone who is legal to have it then the person that writes my paycheck is then guilty of a straw purchase by providing the money. If I borrow the money from the bank to buy a gun as a gift then the bank is then guilty as well. Yes I know that sounds ridiculous and can be easily dismantled as an argument. The intent of the law is to keep Mr. Jones from buying a gun for Mr. Smith with Mr. Smith's money because of the possible intent or reason he may be doing so. The scenario in my estimation is slightly different considering that in my scenario the son just had an idea but the mother made the transaction and gave the gift. The son was just the idea and the paycheck. I would guess that many people commit this crime without even knowing its a crime or the intent to commit a crime.
 
Last edited:
emoody007 said:
I don't disagree of the technicality of it. But the Law also takes into consideration the intent of the law written and if that intent was violated.
Click to expand...
It's been a minute since I read Abramski, but I think that SCOTUS was pretty clear. The intent of the law was to insure that the person filling out the 4473 was the actual transferee.

Brian Pfleuger said:
Yes, it is. In fact, it is essentially the very example of a straw purchase used by the ATF in the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide...

"An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form."
Click to expand...
It's not quite the same. In the example on the back of the 4473, only Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones are mentioned. In the example by emooduy007, there's a third actor. Nonetheless, if Mr. Carter provides money for Mr. Jones to buy Mr. Smith a firearm, that is quite possibly a straw purchase.

We know that A can give B money, so that B can buy himself (B) a gun.
We know that A can buy a gun to give to B as a gift.
We know that A cannot give money to B to have B buy a gun for A (straw purchase).
I know of no cases or other guidance as to whether A can give B money to buy a firearm for C as a gift. In light of Abramski, it seems dicey.

emoody007 said:
. . . . There was an earlier example in this thread that stated if I legally purchase a gun then give it as a gift to someone who is legal to have it then the person that writes my paycheck is then guilty of a straw purchase by providing the money. If I borrow the money from the bank to buy a gun as a gift then the bank is then guilty as well.
Click to expand...
I missed those examples, but that's hogwash.
 
Here's a really recent, very high profile potential straw purchase that if true, will rock someone's world to the very foundation: The Feds believe 2 of the Islamic terrorist guns were straw purchased. So it's likely a really bad time to even come close to such a buy, as this is typical of the time a nationwide crackdown on straw purchases would be initiated by ATF.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/daniel-zimmerman/all-four-san-bernardino-terrorist-guns-bought-legally-two-by-straw-purchaser/
 
It's interesting that the intended recipient is assumed to be my dad. My parents live in another state. I have pitched in with my mom to help get my dad a rifle before and there was no issue with that. What you suggest is entirely different and would be a straw sale
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top